Two of Canons full frame sensor cameras have issues with static charge buildup. There have been complaints about needing to clean the sensors because the static charge attracts dust(which requires them to be sent to the factory for this service). I hope Nikon's full sensor models don't have this issue. I am very happy with my Nikon D80. I see no reason to pay more for the full sensor model camera and then spend even more on the new lens for them. Check out the prices on the new FX model lens. Too much.

Full frame sensors are inevitable. My major concern in todays market is price. But why the seperation between pro and amateur. Thirty years ago both amateurs and pros bought the same cameras. What's changed since then?

I prefer a FX format sensor DLSR because the photosites are definitely are going to be bigger for a given megapixels compared to DX format or 4/3 format, providing wider dyanmic range and low noise images even at higher ISO's.

With all the worries about light falloff toward the edges of frame using full-frame sensors, what can the average user expect from such a camera? Will more availability of full-frame cameras result in yet another development and buying frenzy as manufacturers dust off old lenses that worked great on 35mm film cameras to be marketed to newer users who've only used "digital-only" lenses? Sounds great for the camera/lens makers; sounds bad for consumers (excluding professionals of course).

Some amateur's will buy the pro model despite the price. I think there has always been a price break regardless of sensor size. I will go from my D200 to a D300 but I simply can't afford a D3 even though it has a bigger sensor. It's called a budget.

I think in the next couple years we will see both the semi pro and pro cameras with full frame sensors. Although the consumer DSLR (such an the Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel) will still have DX sensors for some time.

This is a break through and will fully grasp the capability of digital. This is a step in the right direction. Full frame vs cropped is the same reason for shooting bigger format in the film world. APC-S film was not professional why should that size sensor be. Having FF with high speed is a benchmark in professional photography.

The proof is in the print! It's not the sensor size, nor the megapixals, it's the system that gets the image from the field to the final media. Quality camera and lens along with quality post processing and finally a quality printer. Oh ya, good subject matter helps.

I look for the ratio of how much "bang for my buck" I get from a camera. Even though I use my D-200 more, my D-70 still takes great photos and has a place in my camera stable. I think that I would tend more toward placing any extra $$ into more lenses and lighting.

I have a 'brace of Nikkor glass, from 20mm through 300mm AFIS lenses and analog Nikon camera bodies (F-3's and FE-2) that constitute a major investments on my part, especially the Nikkor optics. I shoot film, commercial film processing, then scan the 35mm slides, then process the E-images to print or display. The pricing of replacement Nikon DSR full-frame bodies and DSLR accessories will have to come way down before I moth-ball my F-3's, FE-2's, and a old "tank" Nikkormat EL, all of which have proven virtually 'bullet-proof' with hard use.

I prefer the APS format and the effective increase in lens focal length. My 18-70mm zoom gives me an effective 27mm at the wide end, which is good enough for what I shoot, so the loss of ultra-wide lenses isn't a factor for me.

Prices always come down and features go up for this type of consumer item. Someday the typical point and shoot will be 33 megapixel with a 20-400mm f/1.4 lens ISO 10-64000, and cost under $300 and weigh 6 ounces.